This week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced efforts to rehire some of the 10,000 employees laid off as part of an extensive restructuring plan to streamline the department. The overhaul, which also includes consolidating divisions and cutting redundant programs, had led to significant backlash from lawmakers, employees, and advocates who argue the changes could jeopardize critical public health services.
The layoffs, which commenced on Tuesday, will ultimately result in a 25% reduction of the HHS workforce, with an additional group of employees taking voluntary buyouts. This initiative aligns with President Trump’s ongoing campaign to cut federal spending through the Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk. Despite reassurances from Secretary Kennedy, critics warn that these changes could disrupt vital health programs and services.
Among the divisions impacted are the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health’s Division of Oral Health, as well as the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention branch under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Entire programs were eliminated, including some that experts argue are essential for public safety and ongoing research. While Kennedy promised that some programs would be reinstated, details remain vague about which agencies or studies will resume.
In his statement to reporters, Secretary Kennedy acknowledged initial missteps, noting, “Some essential studies and staff were mistakenly let go, and we are now working to reinstate them.” However, a department spokesperson has not clarified which teams or projects will return.
The fallout has sparked outrage on Capitol Hill, with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer demanding the rehiring of staff from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Schumer emphasized the crucial role these employees play in supporting the World Trade Center Health Program, which provides resources and care for 9/11 first responders and survivors.
“The drastic cuts at HHS are reckless,” Schumer wrote in a letter to Kennedy. “They endanger the health and well-being of heroic individuals suffering from illnesses linked to their service after the 9/11 attacks.”
Meanwhile, other lawmakers and advocacy groups have raised concerns about potential gaps in services for vulnerable populations, such as older adults and individuals with disabilities. Employees from the Administration for Community Living, which supports these groups, were among those reportedly contacted about returning to work.
Secretary Kennedy defended the restructuring as a necessary step to eliminate redundancy and refocus HHS on its “core mission” of combating chronic disease. According to Kennedy, the department had become inefficient, with over 100 communications offices and more than 40 procurement departments creating unnecessary overlap. He emphasized that the overhaul aims to consolidate 28 divisions into 15 under a rebranded name: the Administration for a Healthy America.
“This is about aligning HHS with its mission to stop the chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy explained. “By streamlining operations, we’re delivering a win-win for taxpayers and the communities we serve.”
Critics argue that while cutting bureaucracy may save money, it should not come at the expense of public health. Several essential services, including lead poisoning prevention and occupational safety programs, have been interrupted, potentially putting millions of Americans at risk.
The HHS oversees key federal agencies like the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). With half of its employees now working remotely or laid off, some worry this downsizing could impact the department’s ability to respond to health crises.
As Kennedy works to reinstate certain programs and employees, questions linger about the ultimate impact of these cuts. While some see the restructuring as a step toward efficiency, others fear it could weaken vital safety nets for public health. Whether the Administration for a Healthy America will deliver on its promise to streamline services without compromising care remains to be seen.
